awilliam at redhat.com
Thu May 2 21:06:31 UTC 2013
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 19:55 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Frank Murphy <frankly3d at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:20:30 -0400
> > Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This is nonsense. There are enough "licenses for the linux
> >> > environment". A lot of vendors have licensed MP3 en/decoders that
> >> > work on the linux. The point is that there is no licensed open
> >> > source mp3 en/decoder.
> >> Name 2.
> > http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/
> > http://www.nero.com/enu/downloads-linux4-update.php
> Neither of which address the existing MP3 patent issues, only software
> copyright issues. Mind you, Most of these patents are finally
> expiring, and the existing court cases have been.... oddm and usually
> settled out of court. But there's nothing in those licenses that
> protects you from the existing patent claims of Alcatel-Lucent, or of
> Texas MP3 Technologies, or those of a Japanese electronics firm I used
> to work for. (Ask privately if curious.)
One: you, drago01 and Frank are not in fact disagreeing. When drago01
"This is nonsense. There are enough "licenses for the linux
environment". A lot of vendors have licensed MP3 en/decoders that work
on the linux. The point is that there is no licensed open source mp3
he was saying more or less what you are. There are F/OSS MP3 decoders.
There are MP3 decoders with patent licenses. But there is no F/OSS MP3
decoder with a patent license.
Fluendo's decoder is an example of a non-F/OSS decoder which has a
patent license. mgp123 is an example of a F/OSS decoder which has no
patent license. RPM Fusion can include either type of decoder (though I
think in practice it includes only the 'F/OSS but not patent licensed'
type), but Fedora can include neither.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel